For heavens sake, EPIRB's on a ship are switched off when resting in dry dock (say for a two-week period), so yes, they CAN be turned off. Yes, all the Hammar spring does is release the buoy from its bracket. Everybody is clear about that.
Lehtola is clear the fault happened at the installation stage. So this is different from an inspection stage or a ship-in-distress stage.
How about the Brandenburg report?
How you interpret your various weird bits of translation is your problem.
Irrelevant, since we know the EPIRBs on the Estonia were the old, manual, type, which are off until turned on.
Describe the process of "registering" an EPIRB with a satellite.
I think that is a tacit admission that it was Vixen's own singular definition. I mean, why would anyone "familiar with the language in question" need to use a third party translation?
Rushed off my feet today but will do soon. Finnish is very simple: the jargon is either an anglicised/scientific word or it is very logical, as in English when one makes a noun out of a verb. English has about three varieties of the same word (derived from Old English/anglo-saxon, latin, French) and we find many scientific words are Greek origin (as in words ending in '-ized'). So many of the same scientific terms in English are quite similar in Finnish. 'Buoy' = 'poiju' bearing in mind 'p' is closer to 'b' (which doesn't exist in Finnish) in sound. This is because most technical jargon is modern.
I doubt that explanation only because the translation really does not look like anything a native English speaker would write. I feel the reluctance to name the source of the translation must have some other reason.
I used to have hundreds of books before moving but still have many reference books: history (sub section local history), biography, literary fiction, the odd Graham Hancock but in general, very eclectic. I have never claimed to be an engineer so I am not sure what point is being made here. But I do have encyclopediae.
Please do. You've been peddling the Brandeburg report for years, including your alleged superiority at interpreting it. You whined all through the SwRI discussion that we should move on to Brandeburg and the third one. Now that you finally had your chance to shine forth your knowledge of the Brandeburg findings, you've wasted several pages on the well-trodden path of EPIRBs. All I'm asking you to do at this stage is interpret one paragraph in your own words.
Technical jargon is, above all, technical and requires knowledge of the technology in order to choose the appropriate word in English. You don't know how EPIRBs work, so we wonder why you consider yourself an authority on how best to translate a description of one from any language.
You pretend to sit in judgment over engineers and your other betters who sat on the JAIC and reported on the accident. The point being made, as usual, is that you appear to have made absolutely no effort to educate yourself in the fields of knowledge that pertain to your judgment. But you seem to have accumulated a lot of conspiracy stories that form your principal sources.
I am following the news and developments.
No. You are trying to tell everyone how the JAIC got it wrong. And you are doing so from a position of profound ignorance nourished by your evident choice of reading material, nearly all of it unchanged by recent activity.
Who was it who changed "armed" to what they considered "a more apt meaning"?
There is nothing to tune.
Yes they can, they have a switch for manual operation as well as the water activated switch.
After they are activated by water a buoy will transmit until the battery is flat.
They are off if the manual switch is off and the water activated switch is dry, or as posted earlier if they are in their container.